Friday, January 12, 2024

Banning speech or protecting children?

By Deacon Mike Manno

(The Wanderer) – The Iowa Legislature during its last session passed Senate File 496 which required schools in the state to do three things: First, remove from public school libraries books that contain descriptions or visual depictions of a “sex act”; second it prohibited school districts or teachers from providing programs, the promotion and instruction to students through grade six on “gender identity” and “sexual orientation”, and third it required schools to notify parents if their child requests an accommodation relating to gender identity.

          SF 496 was passed in April and on May 26 Governor Kim Reynolds signed it into law. The aim of the legislation and of the governor was to protect younger children (grade six and below) from material that was not age appropriate. It needs to be noted that what was referred to as a “book ban” neither banned any book – they could still be purchased in any bookstore – nor kept them from those in seventh grade or above.

          Naturally, the law was challenged in two lawsuits, one by several groups of the usual suspects, including 10 parents on behalf of eight of their minor children, and the other by several book publishers and their authors who marketed their work to students and teachers. The cases were consolidated for hearing.

          On December 29, U.S. District Court Judge Stephen H. Locher, a Biden appointee to the court, granted the plaintiffs requests and issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the state from enforcing SF 496 except for one inconsequential point which the court denied as moot since the child-plaintiff parents all knew of his circumstances and he was not then affected by the law and thus had no standing.  In all other respects SF 496 was put on hold to at least the conclusion of the litigation.

          The judge, in his 46-page order granting the injunction, found the law to be both overbroad and too vague.

          As to the law being overbroad, the judge said: “Senate File 496, on its face, does not permit school officials to take context into account when determining whether a book is ‘age-appropriate’ or contains a ‘sex act.’ Meaning: the law prohibits such books even if the ‘sex act’ was, say, an impetus for legislation (e.g., books describing the history of laws geared toward preventing sexual assault), important for historical reasons (such as ‘sex acts’ that played a central role in political campaigns or served as the basis for impeaching a sitting president), or played an important role in an award-winning work of fiction like explaining a character’s emotional development (as in the case of books written by some Plaintiffs here).”

          He also added something which for me was a disturbing comment: “The law also prohibits students from being involved in deciding whether a book should be removed or not.” Remember, this part of the law only applied to materials available to students up to sixth grade, pre-teens, six to 12 year olds.

          To the issue of vagueness, he pointed to the terms “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” used in the law. According to Judge Locher, they are used in a neutral manner. Thus, any reference to them could also refer to a boy who identifies as a boy. Since referring to him as a boy would designate his sexual identity it would run afoul of the law.

           “Similarly,” he wrote, “under the plain language of the statute, it appears that a teacher cannot instruct students to refer to the teacher as “Mr. _____” or “Miss______,” as this would be an “instruction” that “relat[es] to” the teacher’s “gender identity,” which is a verboten topic. It also appears to be impermissible for teachers to identify historical figures or literary characters as being either male or female or use masculine or feminine pronouns to refer to them, as any such discussion would, again, amount to promotion or instruction that relates to the person’s gender identity.”

          Of course, none of that was the intent of the law and, as the judge recounts the arguments, there appears to be no legitimate concern (pre-textual perhaps) that the state or any of its subdivisions would prosecute a teacher or school district over those matters.

          Yet calling the law the “don’t say anything” bill, the judge says, “The Court understands, of course, that this is likely not what the Iowa Legislature was trying to accomplish when it passed Senate File 496. Indeed, the State Defendants and GLBT Youth Plaintiffs alike characterize this interpretation of the law as ‘absurd,’ and both argue—for different reasons—that the law is designed to prohibit discussion of homosexuality and transgenderism.”

          Citing case law, he wrote, “When a plaintiff has shown a likely violation of his or her First Amendment rights, the other requirements for obtaining a preliminary injunction are generally deemed to have been satisfied. … The irreparable harm factor weighs squarely in favor of imposing a preliminary injunction. It is well-established that ‘[t]he loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.’”

          If the issue is irreparable harm, should the court have not weighted the harm that the plaintiffs might suffer by seeking the books and materials elsewhere, against the harm the legislature was trying to prevent: the indoctrination of innocent children on behalf of a sexual minority without regard to the rights of the parents. It was mentioned that parents do have the legal and constitutional right to control the upbringing of their children, but then dropped. Considering the legislature enacted SB 496 in defense of parental rights, and that nothing is banned (as the liberals would have you believe) why was there no extended review of the balance between parents, who have a superior right to their children than teachers and book publishers?

          If we can extend the logical result of this opinion, what would the court do if the publisher was Playboy magazine? Would this judge order pornography in elementary schools?

          Of course, I suppose that if drag-queen story hour is allowed in some schools nothing could really be banned. Parents, now more than ever, stand up and fight for your kids.

 (You can reach Mike at: DeaconMike@q.com and listen to him every weekend on Faith On Trial or podcast at https://iowacatholicradio.com/faith-on-trial/)

No comments:

Post a Comment